Electrochemical Uranium Extraction from Organic Radioactive Wastewater: New System Design Increases Extraction Rate

     Improvements in minerals extraction technologies continue with a new system that can recover uranium from organic radioactive wastewater with 90% efficiency. Recovering uranium from wastewater is useful as it can reduce uranium mining, which has significant environmental impacts.  A new, highly efficient electrochemical method of recovering uranium from wastewater has been engineered by researchers. The process offers long-term stability and strong tolerance to chemically complex environments. Existing electrochemical uranium extraction:

“…enables controlled operation, rapid response, and high selectivity. However, the technology still struggles with issues like electrode passivation, interference from competing ions, and the high cost of fabricating efficient electrodes.”

     The new study, published in Sustainable Carbon Materials, addresses these issues with a covalent organic framework (COF) dual-function electrode. It utilizes:

“…a self-standing covalent organic framework electrode capable of performing two tasks simultaneously. Built on a carbon cloth support, the electrode contains a polyarylether backbone that drives the oxygen reduction reaction to produce hydrogen peroxide, along with amidoxime groups that selectively bind uranyl ions.”

     The success of the process relies on pH, applied voltage, ionic strength (Na+ concentration), and the in-situ generation of H2O2. Extraction efficiencies exceeding 90% have been achieved. Improved selectivity allows the system to exceed 85% extraction rates even when there is competition from sodium ions. Interference from organic additives in wastewater is also minimized.

“The authors note that several challenges remain before the technology can be widely deployed, including improving electrode fabrication, reducing sensitivity to pH fluctuations, and preventing blockage of active sites during long term operation.”

     Below are some future research directions for the new extraction process.

     Aside from offering the highest recovery rates for electrochemical uranium extraction, the process can also be potentially used to recover uranium from contaminated wastewater as a form of environmental remediation at sensitive sites.

 

      

References:

 

Uranium could be recovered from wastewater with 90% efficiency for nuclear energy. Prabhat Ranjan Mishra. Interesting Engineering. November 27, 2025. Uranium could be recovered from wastewater with 90% efficiency for nuclear energy

Synergistic parameter optimization in electrochemical upcycling of uranyl: mechanisms and perspectives of self-standing COF electrodes. Tao Wen1, , , Muhammad Wakeel. Sustainable Carbon Materials. 2025, Vol. 1. November 2025. Synergistic parameter optimization in electrochemical upcycling of uranyl mechanisms and perspectives of self-standing COF electrodes

New electrochemical strategy boosts uranium recovery from complex wastewater. Peer-Reviewed Publication. Biochar Editorial Office, Shenyang Agricultural University. Eureka Alert. November 26, 2025.  New electrochemical strategy boosts uranium recovery from complex wastewater | EurekAlert!

EPA Fact Checks Media: ‘Single Fluorinated Compounds Are NOT Forever Chemicals.’ New Fluorinated Pesticides with Ultra-Short Chain PFAS Approved by the EPA Don’t Accumulate in the Human Body as Long-Chain PFAS Do: Media Can Conflate Them

     All PFAS chemicals are not the same in terms of biological effects. The problematic PFAS are long-chained, having two or more fluorinated molecules. These bioaccumulate in the body and don’t break down in the environment, thus the moniker “forever chemicals.” However, ultra-short-chain PFAS chemicals do break down in the body. There remains some concern, however, about their environmental persistence.  

    The EPA recently approved two ultra-short chain PFAS chemicals as pesticides: cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, which will be used on crops including romaine lettuce, broccoli, and potatoes.

Doug Van Hoewyk, a toxicologist at Maine's Department of Agriculture, noted:

"It is important to differentiate between the highly toxic PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS for which the EPA has set drinking water standards, versus less toxic PFAS in pesticides that help maintain food security," he said.

"Many fluorinated compounds registered or proposed for U.S. pesticidal use in recent years offer unique benefits for farmers, users, and the public," EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch told The Post.

     The activist media jumped on the announcement, citing both environmental persistence and possible effects on pollinators. Some of the stories conflated the different PFAS chemicals, noting the issues with long-chain PFAS detection in drinking water supplies and concentrated in sewage sludge biosolids.

“My reaction is shock and awe,” said Nathan Donnelly, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The worry is that this is irreversible. Whatever we put into our environment today will be lurking around forever.”

     Apparently, the negative press was enough for the EPA to issue a Fact Check:

“BOTTOM LINE: EPA-Approved Single Fluorinated Compounds Are NOT Forever Chemicals and Pose No Safety Concerns When Used According to Label Instructions.”

      EPA pointed out that distinguishing the two types of PFAS according to their chemical differences, which leads to differences in bioaccumulation, was established by the Biden EPA in 2023. The Biden EPA also approved single-chain fluorinated compounds for pesticide use.

“In 2023, the Biden EPA that went through a public rulemaking process and clearly defined PFAS as not including single fluorinated compounds. This deliberate exclusion of single fluorinated carbons was based on extensive scientific evidence and public input demonstrating that molecules with only one fluorinated carbon lack the persistence and bioaccumulation properties that are commonly associated with forever chemicals.”

     The fact check also noted that the single-chain PFAS compounds have no relation to the fluoride compound used to fluoridate water supplies. I found the full fact check to be informative, so I am reproducing it here:

 

    

References:

 

EPA approves new pesticides with PFAS ‘forever chemicals,' alarming scientists. Julia Marshall. Straight Arrow News. November 24, 2025. EPA approves new pesticides with PFAS ‘forever chemicals,' alarming scientists

FACT CHECK: EPA Debunks False Claims that Agency Recently Approved "Forever Chemical" Pesticides. U.S. EPA. November 26, 2025. FACT CHECK: EPA Debunks False Claims that Agency Recently Approved "Forever Chemical" Pesticides | US EPA

EPA approves new pesticide with PFAS, sparking health concerns. WRAL News. November 28, 2025. EPA approves new pesticide with PFAS, sparking health concerns :: WRAL.com

Pesticides Containing a Single Fluorinated Carbon. U.S. EPA. Last updated November 26, 2025. Pesticides Containing a Single Fluorinated Carbon | US EPA

Nuclear Power Plant Refurbishment: Bruce Power’s Major Component Replacement Program: Replacement of High-Pressure Steam Turbines to Increase Output at Four Nuclear Power Units is Latest Effort

     Canada’s Bruce Power announced it will upgrade the high-pressure steam turbines at its Bruce A nuclear power units with Siemens turbines, which will result in an increase of 30MW of power for each unit, or nearly 125 MW total. The upgrades are expected to be completed between 2028 and 2031.

     According to Interesting Engineering:

“Upgrading a power plant is the fastest way to get more energy onto the grid,” stated Arne Wohlschlegel, Managing Director of Siemens Energy Canada. “When this upgrade is complete, Bruce Power will be able to deliver more clean energy throughout Ontario and extend the life of this plant for another 30 years.”

     The company is in the process of its Major Component Replacement program, which involves upgrading or replacing critical reactor components, including steam generators, pressure tubes, calandria tubes, and feeder tubes. It is expected to add 30-35 years to the operating life of each reactor. These kinds of upgrades are key to extending the lives of important nuclear power plants.

     Bruce Power's Project 2030 involves several measures aimed at increasing the company’s nuclear output to 7000 MW.

     World Nuclear News reports:

“The Bruce Power site in Tiverton, Ontario, consists of eight units - four in Bruce A and four in Bruce B. Bruce A includes two Candu-791 reactors and two Candu-750 reactors. Bruce B has four Candu-750s. The federal government announced CAD50 million (USD36 million) of funding in February last year to support pre-development work to study the feasibility of building 4800 MWe of new generating capacity, as Bruce C.”

     The ongoing MCR program will conrinue to provide significant jobs and economic benefits.

“As we stare down President Trump’s tariff threat, I am proud that well over 90 percent of all materials purchased are stamped with ‘Made in Canada,’ creating over 20,000 jobs for Ontario’s skilled workforce,” the province’s Minister of Energy and Mines, Stephen Lecce, says.

     The company’s nuclear reactors also produce medical isotopes. Medical isotopes are a critical part of radiopharmaceuticals, which are used to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases and cancer. As noted below, there are two ways to make medical isotopes: cyclotrons and nuclear reactors. The ones made with nuclear reactors are more durable and longer-lasting.

     A press release from April noted the positive economic and energy security effects of the replacement program.

“The privately funded projects generate $10 billion in annual economic activity, bolstering local and provincial economies while strengthening Canada’s energy independence.”

“Ontario has become a world leader in nuclear power plant refurbishment and, along with our partners and skilled tradespeople, we continue to prove that these complex major projects can be delivered with the highest standards of safety and quality, on time and on budget,” said Eric Chassard, Bruce Power President and Chief Executive Officer.

“Bruce Power’s Life-Extension Program is Canada’s largest private sector clean energy infrastructure project, with about 90 per cent of purchasing in Canada, supporting hundreds of businesses throughout the province.”

     The company’s refurbishment efforts should be a model for other nuclear power plants to upgrade and modernize components if they can.

 

 

References:

 

Bruce Power plans mighty turbines to boost nuclear plant output by 125 megawatts. Sujita Sinha. Interesting Engineering. November 25, 2025. Bruce Power plans mighty turbines to boost nuclear plant output by 125 megawatts

40-year-old nuclear reactor gets massive rebuild to power Canada for 35 years. Georgina Jedikovska. Interesting Engineering. April 9, 2025. Bruce Power's Unit 5 nuclear refurbishment approved for 2026 start

Bruce A set for power boost from Siemens Energy steam turbines. World Nuclear News. November 24, 2025. Bruce A set for power boost from Siemens Energy steam turbines - World Nuclear News

What exactly are medical isotopes? NRG Pallas. What exactly are medical isotopes? | NRG PALLAS

IESO green-lights Unit 5 Major Component Replacement project, securing reliable Canadian-made electricity for decades. Bruce Power. April 7, 2025. IESO green-lights Unit 5 Major Component Replacement project, securing reliable Canadian-made electricity for decades - Bruce Power

Export Boom or Energy Bust? The LNG Balancing Act: Summary, Review, and Commentary of Geoscientist Jason Eleson’s Post in ‘The Energy Centrist Blog’

     This post weighs the pros and cons of the impending U.S. LNG export boom. It is true that the U.S. does not have an unlimited amount of natural gas to produce, convert to LNG, and sell to foreign countries. U.S. LNG exports have grown from virtually zero before 2014 to the world’s largest in basically a decade, due to the shale revolution involving many technological achievements such as high-volume hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, longer drilling, optimized proppant loading and frac stage spacing, multi-well pads, and many other innovations that increase production.  

     He frames the debate and asks whether expanded LNG exports support American geopolitical influence and energy security or increase domestic energy prices while guaranteeing more fossil fuel infrastructure at odds with climate goals. They really do both. He also notes that LNG exports already exceed residential natural gas consumption. He notes that current exports are at about 15BCF/day, with about 13BCF/day of additional export capacity under construction and expected to be online by 2029.

     Utilizing his standard Energy Centrist Blog format Eleson gives the arguments for expanded LNG exports as: 1) Global energy security and geopolitical leverage – in this case it is mostly European energy security and pivoting away from Russian gas; 2) Economic benefits and job creation – LNG exports add significantly to GDP and support hundreds of thousands of jobs; 3) Environmental benefits through coal replacement – this continues to happen, especially in Asia, which is a huge buyer of LNG. LNG, of course, also has significantly reduced carbon emissions relative to coal. He notes:

“With policy initiatives further lowering lifecycle emissions from US gas production, liquefaction, and shipping, and with many facilities adopting carbon capture, US LNG can play a significant role in decarbonizing global energy systems as long as coal remains a principal alternative in growth markets.”

     His section on ‘Centrist Arguments’ compares the benefits and potential costs to consumers. He notes that the American Petroleum Institute (API) claims that LNG exports have not affected domestic consumer prices, but the Energy Information Administration and utilities are reporting that 2025 and 2026 domestic gas prices are being affected by increasing exports. The price concern is dependent on whether U.S. domestic natural gas production will keep up with LNG demand. He notes that natural gas from the Permian and Haynesville regions will have to grow to support exports. 

     LNG exports have not affected domestic gas prices too much in the past, as shown below, but that is no guarantee that they won't in the future. 

     Regarding ‘Arguments Against,’ he notes:

“Opponents argue that since the US began ramping up LNG exports, domestic residential gas prices have surged 52% nationwide (exceeding 60% in several states!) while industrial prices rose 31%...”

     Other concerns include the effects of climate. LNG is replacing coal, but also replacing renewables. Communities along the Gulf Coast are already burdened with many petrochemical plants and legitimate claims of health problems due to pollution. Another concern is the economic effects on domestic customers, including industrial customers. More LNG exports increase the likelihood of winter price spikes and storage inventory risks. They may also increase global price swings. He also notes that LNG export approvals now equal about 50% of the total national gas supply. He notes that how long expanded exports will increase domestic gas prices depends on:

“…shale output, pipeline buildout, and shifts in international gas demand and supply—including growth from China and rival exporters like Qatar.”

     Another variable that is unknown is whether there will be a global oversupply.

“…some analysts project a market oversupply from 2027 onward and potential global demand peak as early as 2030, with European LNG demand likely to fall in the 2030s as renewables expand…”   

     U.S. pipeline buildout is another unknown. Will it be enough to supply both export and domestic markets? The prolific Appalachian region, which produces a third of the gas from the lower 48, is still significantly pipeline-constrained, with limited takeaway capacity. By 2030, exports could double residential consumption.

     With LNG prices in Europe and Asia about three times what natural gas costs are in the U.S., LNG remains a good export investment. However, as more and more LNG comes onto the global market, those prices are likely to drop. U.S. natural gas demand in recent years has been increasing at a rate of about 2% per year, but that growth rate could climb to between 3 and 6% per year by 2030 due to LNG demand and increased domestic demand due to AI data centers.

“If there is any good news for US natural gas consumers, it is that AI-sourced demand for natural gas will likely be stymied by supply chain issues. U.S. natural gas power plants are currently facing severe turbine supply chain challenges, with major manufacturers reporting backorders of three to seven years for high-capacity turbines. GE Vernova, Siemens, and Mitsubishi are all experiencing unprecedented demand, with some utilities and project developers unable to secure new turbines until at least 2028–2031 as of late 2025, and procurement costs for equipment up 36% or more over previous estimates due to backlogs, tariffs, and high commodity prices. These long wait times stem from surging orders driven by AI/data center power demand, limited domestic manufacturing, and dependence on international suppliers for critical parts, creating growing risk of grid reliability issues, project delays, and ballooning budgets for gas-fired generation across the U.S.”

     At some point, more natural gas drilling will be required. However, producers will likely wait for Henry Hub price signals before any drilling boom happens. If they wait too long, prices could spike for American consumers. One issue he does not address is the U.S. long-term natural gas supply. While that supply looks good, there are issues in some basins with shrinking Tier 1 drilling locations. This could affect prices in the future, causing them to rise if drilling doesn’t keep up with demand. I think this may become more of an issue in the 2030s.

     As always, this is a very informative and thought-provoking blog post that considers opposing views. I know, as a consumer of natural gas for power, that I am concerned about my power bill rising too high. I already keep it cool in the winter.

     

 

 

References:

 

Export Boom or Energy Bust? The LNG Balancing Act. Jason Eleson. The Energy Centrist. October 26, 2025. Export Boom or Energy Bust? The LNG Balancing Act

 

MRI Contrasting Agents Containing REE Gadolinium are Contaminating North and Baltic Seas

 

     Water testing shows that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrasting agents are accumulating in the North and Baltic Seas, coming from rivers after being excreted by patients. CritMET research group, led by Prof. Michael Bau, a geochemist at Constructor University in Bremen, did the study. Modern wastewater treatment plants do not remove these substances. The main substance of concern is the rare earth element gadolinium. It is unclear how this gadolinium is affecting aquatic organisms or how it breaks down over time. Aquatic organisms such as fish and mussels are being analyzed for effects from the substance. There is also concern that the chemicals could reach groundwater and drinking water supplies.

     Phys.org reports:

"The southern North Sea receives the contrast agents primarily via the Rhine, Ems, Weser, and Elbe rivers, but also the River Thames," says Dr. Dennis Krämer, head of the Soil Analysis Department at the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources in Hanover, who is the lead author of the North Sea study and an adjunct professor at Constructor University.

"The Baltic Sea water, in turn, receives the gadolinium contrast agents from, among other sources, the Vistula and Oder rivers, which—like other rivers in Poland and almost everywhere in Europe—are contaminated with this anthropogenic gadolinium," adds Addis Alemu, a doctoral candidate in the EU project "PANORAMA," who is investigating rare earth elements in rivers and lakes across Europe.

     Currently, there appears to be no danger from the contrasting agents as they are well below limits, but their concentration in these areas, especially coastal sea areas, is expected to continue to increase.

"Next, we will evaluate how stable the various MRI contrast agents in seawater actually are. We investigate how long it takes for these chemical compounds to degrade in seawater, releasing the gadolinium and making it bioavailable. The concentrations of anthropogenic gadolinium are currently well below dangerous levels.

      

 

References:

 

North and Baltic seas show widespread contamination by MRI contrasting agents. D. Scott Peterson. Phys.org. November 26, 2025. North and Baltic seas show widespread contamination by MRI contrasting agents

 

CATL Continues to Lead in Battery Development with 5th Gen Lithium-Ion Phosphate, Naxtra Sodium-Ion, Freevoy Hybrid Dual-Chemistry Power, and Solid-State Batteries

     Chinese battery company Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd, or as it is more commonly known, CATL, is the biggest in the world. Currently, it is moving to mass produce its fifth-generation lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells. The benefits of the upgrade are higher energy density and longer cycle life. Durability and costs continue to improve.  

     Interesting Engineering writers Kaif Shaikh and Bojan Stojkovski have written about CATL’s battery innovations. The company works with multiple battery chemistries and has developed advanced manufacturing capabilities. It has brands in production that focus on different battery markets and that address different EV shortcomings. Shaikh writes about CATL’s Super Tech Day in May:

“In one morning, CATL rolled out three production-ready technologies—Naxtra sodium-ion cells, the Freevoy dual-power pack, and a second-generation Shenxing super-fast-charging battery—each precisely aimed at easing the main pain points of EV ownership: cold-weather performance, range anxiety, charge time, weight, and safety.”

     Naxtra, the company’s sodium-ion battery, replaces lithium with abundant and cheap sodium. Its passenger-vehicle battery has the highest specific energy reported for any sodium-ion cell and a range of about 310 miles (500 km), even at extremely low temperatures. Sodium is much safer than lithium, reducing the risk of thermal runaway. They also sell “a 24-V heavy-duty ‘start-stop’ version for big rigs and buses that face brutal duty cycles and temperature swings.” Sodium could replace LFP batteries in budget cars and fleet vehicles, opening the door for some vehicle cost reductions.

     CATL’s Freevoy brand is a dual-powered battery pack that allows switching from different battery chemistry packs, supporting niche uses. One might call it a hybrid system. One battery section might be used for cruising, and the other optimized for power density or low-temperature resilience.

“CATL claims up to 60% higher volumetric energy density and 50% higher gravimetric density than today’s mainstream packs. Translation: more miles from the same package or a smaller, lighter pack for the same range.”

     Hybridization is chemistry-agnostic. Combinations include sodium + LFP for cold-climate commuting, LFP + LFP that pairs the new anode with CATL’s ultra-fast Shenxing LFP cell to deliver about 620 miles of range, and NCM + LFP NCM + NCM, which offers sporting power and a massive range of 930 miles (1500 km).

     The company’s Shenxing Gen 2 LFP offers 10-minute charging from 5% to 80% at most temperatures. It also offers 500 miles of range.

     Shaikh says the company is “moving beyond incremental gains toward architecture-level change.”

     He goes on to point out some significant obstacles to adopting CATL’s battery innovations in the U.S.

“While CATL supplies Tesla’s Shanghai plant and has licensed its technology to Ford for a planned U.S. battery factory, direct integration into U.S. assembly lines remains complicated due to tariffs, geopolitical scrutiny, and evolving domestic content requirements under the Inflation Reduction Act.”

“The remaining hurdle is regulatory: U.S. safety agencies will want real-world abuse-testing data, and the national charging network must upgrade to deliver megawatt-level currents.”

     CATL also recently unveiled a new EV battery for Europe with extended range and improved safety. The European options are LFP options, similar to the ones offered elsewhere. The company appears to be offering regional variants to solve regional problems due to temperature, range needs, and other factors.  

     Interesting Engineering writer Bojan Stojkovski noted:

“CATL says its research into all-solid-state batteries ranks among the most advanced globally, pointing to a broad innovation pipeline beyond current chemistries.”

      He also notes that so far in 2025, CATL accounted for 36.6% of global battery installations.

“In China, CATL recorded 36.14 gigawatt-hours of installed EV battery capacity in October, representing 43 percent of the domestic market. The breakdown by chemistry indicates that ternary lithium batteries made up 72.79 percent of its installations during the month, while LFP batteries represented 35.7 percent.”

“CATL’s founder and CEO Robin Zeng recently outlined that CATL supplied about 120 gigawatt-hours of lithium batteries out of China’s nearly 200 GWh of exports during the first three quarters of the year.”

“Over the past decade, the company has invested more than $11 billion in R&D, with roughly $2.1 billion invested in the first three quarters of this year alone. Today, more than 20 million new energy vehicles (NEVs) worldwide use CATL batteries, helping reduce CO₂ emissions by an estimated 15.4 million US short tons annually.”

     The company is also moving into other applications of electric transport, including commercial vehicles, electric vessels, and electric aircraft. Its Tectrans series is a favorite for all-electric heavy-duty trucks. CATL batteries power nearly 900 electric vessels. It is also working on electric propulsion utilizing its two-ton eVTOL, which has successfully completed multiple test flights.

     One important set of questions is perhaps for U.S. companies. How do we also reap these innovations? Through technology licensing? Direct purchasing? Developing domestic versions? How should regulatory barriers be addressed?

   

 

References:

 

CATL’s 5th-gen sodium-ion battery triumphs over lithium’s low-temperature weakness. Bojan Stojkovski. Interesting Engineering. November 17, 2025. CATL’s 5th-gen sodium-ion battery triumphs over lithium’s low-temperature weakness

China’s CATL unveils new EV battery for Europe with extended range, high safety. Kaif Shaikh. Interesting Engineering. September 8, 2025. China's CATL unveils new EV battery for Europe with extended range

Naxtra, Freevoy, Shenxing: CATL’s triple tech play to eclipse gasoline cars: Range anxiety, winter sluggishness, and hour-long charging stops, the hat-trick of EV complaints may soon vanish thanks to CATL’s trio of next-gen technologies. Kaif Shaikh. Interesting Engineering. May 25, 2025. CATL unveils three key tech to draw the road map for the next-gen EVs

 

 

The Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: The New Concern is PFAS from Sewage Sludge Biosolids Applied as Part of the Cleanup

     The Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site in Eastern Pennsylvania was designed to clean up pollution from toxic heavy metals as a result of zinc mining. In that goal, the cleanup has been largely successful. The zinc smelting plant was closed in 1981 and left behind 3000 acres of mountainous terrain contaminated with heavy metals, including cadmium, lead, zinc, arsenic, manganese, and other cancer-causing pollutants. The steep terrain complicated the cleanup. The land was devoid of vegetation, and there was concern about contamination of local water resources. It was acknowledged as a threat to the drinking water of the nearby town of Palmerton, with a population of 5,600.  

     Miranda Willson of E&E News by Politico wrote about the site in a recent article describing its history and the current concerns.

“With EPA’s blessing, the zinc company spread municipal sewage sludge as fertilizer on the barren land in the 1990s. A sewage sludge mixture was used again in the early 2000s, with a total of 112,515 wet tons of the stuff applied as fertilizer.”

     Trees and grasses returned to the site. Unfortunately, the sewage sludge biosolids contained a hidden contaminant in the form of polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals” that have become major emerging contaminants. PFAS are linked to health issues such as fertility problems, high blood pressure, and cancer. We now know that concentrated sewage sludge can contain elevated amounts of these contaminants. This was unknown when the EPA agreed to the applications. The EPA considers that the biosolids are the likely source of the chemicals.

“In 2024, the PMA began detecting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) including PFOS and PFOA in the groundwater extracted by the 6th Street Wells. Detections were post combining (mixing) and post chlorination. The analytical results, which exceed the EPA MCL of 4 ng/L, are provided below.”

     More EPA sampling results from on-site monitoring wells, the local creek, and from on-site soils are given below. These include high levels of the most toxic PFAS, which are PFOA and PFOS. These two were phased out a decade ago.

“EPA collected ground water samples from twelve on-Site monitoring wells. PFOA was detected in every well at concentrations ranging from 0.59 to 43 ng/L.  PFOS was detected in ten of the twelve well samples at concentrations ranging from 12 to 76 ng/L.”       

“EPA collected surface water samples were collected at four locations including a background sample.  The background sample was collected from the Aquashicola Creek upstream of the Site.   PFOA and PFOS were detected in the background sample at 2 ng/L and 2.6 ng/L, respectively.  A sample from the Aquashicola Creek immediately across from the Site contained concentrations of PFOA and PFOS 4.6 ng/L and 6.4 ng/L respectively.  On-Site surface water samples, which are essentially runoff water, contained PFOA concentrations of 37 ng/L and 41 ng/L and PFOS of 100 ng/L and 110 ng/L.”

“EPA collected soil samples were collected from 3 locations on the Site.  PFOA was detected in one sample at a concentration of 5 nanograms per gram (ng/g).  PFOS was detected in all three samples ranging from 2.5 to 13 ng/g.”

     These results bring questions about other Superfund sites and environmental cleanup sites that may have similarly used biosolids for cleanup as a fertilizer, and the use of them as a fertilizer in any capacity.

     PFAS have been found to be present in nearly half the nation’s drinking water, though not at the high levels seen here. They have also been detected in wastewater and sewage sludge. Willson notes:

“Sewage sludge is increasingly being eyed as a suspected source in rural areas where it is used as fertilizer, most often on farmland but also on degraded or contaminated lands.”  

“EPA has long promoted the use of sewage sludge fertilizer. Wastewater treatment plants produce huge amounts of the material, which must be sent to landfills or incinerated if it isn’t reused. But the agency has not set regulatory limits for PFAS in sewage sludge.”

     It is acknowledged that those limits should be set for biosolids.

“The Biden administration began to investigate the risk of PFAS in sewage sludge, releasing a draft report in January that warned that the material can contain forever chemicals. The Trump administration has not committed to finalizing the report or pursuing regulations.”

     The current EPA is still reviewing the report after a comment period recently closed.

     The original cleanup at the site used a mix of sewage sludge, fly ash, and limestone as fertilizer. The goal was two-fold: to aid the growth of vegetation and to prevent the heavy metals from making it into the groundwater by making them less mobile. EPA was not aware at the time that biosolids could be contaminated with PFAS. Willson notes that when it was first discovered:

“3M, a major chemical manufacturer, first warned the agency that sewage sludge could contain high concentrations of PFAS in 2003, according to reporting by The New York Times.”

     The sewage sludge for the site came from 16 different wastewater treatment plants in the area. One in particular in Warminster, Pennsylvania, was home to a former Navy training center, which used a firefighting foam made of PFAS for decades. That site is now a PFAS-laden Superfund site, with extremely high concentrations of PFOS reported in the groundwater.

     Another problem with the original Palmerton site cleanup was that in the second application from 2000-2002, the biosolids were applied at more than twice the upper bound recommended in the EPA’s 2025 draft report on sewage sludge risk assessment for PFAS. After 2002, the EPA switched to using compost on the site for fertilization and binding metals. 

     Below is how sewage sludge biosolids are disposed of. About half is either landfilled or incinerated. A significant chunk is used for agriculture and other uses. About 1% of it is used for remediation.

     Below is a conceptual model of the exposure pathways.

     It should be pointed out that the source of the PFAS in Palmerton’s water has not been definitively determined. The biosolids, however, are the chief suspect.

“DEP and EPA have not made any determination about the source of PFAS in Palmerton’s water; however, potential sources are being investigated,” DEP spokesperson Neil Shader said in an email.

“The maximum level of PFOS detected in the surface water there is 110 ppt, while the maximum level in the soil was 13,000 ppt, EPA said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers PFOS levels in soil above 52 ppt to be potentially unsafe to adults.”

“EPA said it expects to install a groundwater treatment system for Palmerton’s drinking water wells by mid-2026, using funds available through the Superfund program. Due to the difficulty of removing PFAS from water, such treatment systems can cost millions of dollars.”

“EPA will continue investigating site-related PFAS contamination to determine any additional sources of PFAS and the extent of the impacts, which will include testing private drinking water wells for PFAS, throughout the rest of 2025 and into 2026,” the agency said in its community notice.

     No doubt, the EPA is reviewing other biosolids applications for remediation as well as for agriculture. This problem also suggests that all wastewater treatment plants should test for PFAS. I read recently that mysterious PFAS contamination somewhere in North Carolina was definitively traced to wastewater from a textiles manufacturing facility. PFAS contamination issues will likely persist much like the chemical persists. The problems are solvable will take time and smart solutions.  

 

References:

 

EPA: Superfund cleanup ‘likely’ fouled Pennsylvania town’s water. Miranda Willson. E&E News by Politico. October 31, 2025. EPA: Superfund cleanup ‘likely’ fouled Pennsylvania town’s water - E&E News by POLITICO

Request for Approval and Funding and Exemption from the $2 Million and 12 Month Statutory Limit for a Time-Critical Removal Action at the Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site. U.S. EPA. Region 3. Philadelphia. October 23, 2025. ACTION MEMORANDUM: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL & FUNDING & EXEMPTION FROM $2 MILLION & 12-MONTH STATUTORY LIMIT FOR TIME-CRITICAL RE

DRAFT SEWAGE SLUDGE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID (PFOA) CASRN 335-67-1 AND PERFLUOROOCTANE SULFONIC ACID (PFOS) CASRN 1763-23-1. January 2025. U.S. EPA. Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for PFOA and PFOS

 

CO2 Has Benefits, but the Best Science Says the Detriments Outweigh Them: Climate Skepticism is Important but There are Limits

     Is the following recent quote from Greenpeace founder, now CO2 and industry advocate, Patrick Moore, correct? Should we listen to him and other CO2 advocates?

“I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication."

"CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth and without it this would be a dead planet."

     I agree that there is too much hysteria about climate change, but there is also a massive amount of data that suggests it is problematic, and impacts could get worse. People in the Arctic have been impacted, and people on low-lying islands have been impacted. Bio-ranges have been changing. The atmosphere and ocean are heating up, and modeling is getting better. Local tipping points have been reached with melted permafrost releasing methane and some coral reefs being bleached and dying off. Bigger hurricanes and wetter storms have been verified.

     Organizations like the CO2 Coalition educate the public about CO2 but do so in a biased way, partially in response to the overreach of climate activism. They purport all the benefits of CO2 as plant food, which increases global greening and crop yields. There is no denying those facts. One might even refer to those who do as CO2 benefits deniers. The coalition puts out white papers and factual statements that, while true, are perhaps misleading in some ways and irrelevant in others. For instance, the statement that “the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration increases” is absolutely true but misleading in the sense that climate scientists know this and incorporate it into modeling. The statement that “more CO2 helps to feed more people worldwide” is also absolutely true. We should acknowledge and celebrate that fact. It is a good reason to argue that reducing CO2 to 350ppm or even to 400ppm will have negative effects on feeding people. Nobody wants that, so we should not aim for it. We also don’t want 550 or 600ppm. The statement that “our current geologic period (Quaternary) has the lowest average CO2 levels in the last 600 million years.” That is true as well, but really not of any relevance to today. The composition of the atmosphere was a little different then. The more recent trend of alternating glacial and interglacial periods over the past 400,000 years is a better metric. That metric shows that for around 350,000 of those 400,000 years, the Earth has been in an Ice Age. Interglacial periods typically last between 10,000 and 15,000 years. Our current interglacial has been in effect for 11,000 years. Thus, sometime between now and the year 6025, we will likely enter the next Ice Age. An Ice Age would certainly be a more troubling event for the world than our current global warming problem.   

     I believe that climate skepticism is warranted, especially if it is propagated by scientists. Thus, orgs like the CO2 coalition are useful and important. However, I also believe that the burden is on those scientists to prove the cases against the large majority of mainstream climate scientists who accept the conclusions of the IPCC about climate change. We do need to acknowledge the benefits of CO2 and the many uncertainties of climate predictions. What bothers me a bit is statements like Patrick Moore made that suggest a complete reversion to believing that CO2 has no negative effects and is solely a good thing. The predictions of climate change alarmists may well turn out to be wrong, but calling it a “complete fabrication” is probably not the best way to address the issue. Calling climate change a hoax is also not a useful statement, not supported by science, nor is Trump’s statement that climate change is “the greatest con job ever.” There is a bit of truth to that statement since the impacts have likely been significantly overestimated by the activists.

     The CO2 Coalition has also been trying to get some of its members onto the EPA’s expert advisory panels, under Lee Zeldin. I was a bit annoyed to see that they were aiming to get James Enstrom, a former UCLA epidemiologist, on one of these boards. Enstrom’s work denying that soot pollution is dangerous is not backed by the best science. The evidence for the dangers of soot, or particulate pollution, is rather incontrovertible. Air pollution kills. We know this from events like the 1950s London Fog and similar events. The effects of smaller doses of particulate matter are more nuanced, but there is strong evidence for its dangers. Another anti-anything green advocate and Trump transition team member, Steve Milloy, wrote a book a few years back called Scare Pollution, where he bizarrely argued that the EPA was harming participants in a study about particulate pollution by exposing them to harmful levels of it while simultaneously arguing that air pollution was not as harmful as depicted. Skepticism in science is vital and is generally good, but has its limits, and it should be acknowledged when those limits are crossed.  

     Earth science and climate science are sciences that often involve large and complex global systems that have many uncertainties. The uncertainties are often exploited by both sides of the debate. New research is solving some of those uncertainties. Sometimes it shows that warming or impacts are overestimated, and sometimes it shows they are underestimated. For instance, recent research shows that the effects of nitrogen fixation for carbon removal have been overestimated by 50%, which “means that Earth system models have been overestimating the carbon dioxide fertilization effect by about 11%.” Thus, the CO2 fertilization effects touted by the CO2 Coalition are likely 11% less than estimated.

     Another effect of the kind of climate skepticism that seeks not only to dispute the assertions of activists but to totally turn them on their head is really an insult to the hundreds of thousands of scientists working to study and quantify our earth and climate systems. Casual statements suggesting that the work of all those scientists is worthless because the initial assumptions are wrong should not be uttered unless there is incontrovertible truth to them. In global systems science, there is inherent uncertainty due to the complexity and the many variables, and that means that definitive statements are less likely to really be definitive. I will say again that the burden of proof is on the climate skeptics to disprove the conclusions of mainstream climate science. Anybody can make bold statements in either extreme. The uncertainties inherent in global systems science can easily be exploited and often are in such statements.

     I have read, reviewed, and studied books by members of the CO2 Coalition and many other climate science skeptics who are distinguished scientists. Aside from some basic facts about CO2 that are indisputable, there is very little to suggest that mainstream climate science is a hoax, a complete fabrication, or a con job. Moore and others have argued that it ties into liberal extremist ideas to redistribute income. While such ideas are openly advocated by some, I do not think that is the case in any meaningful way. Combatting climate change is not a socialist conspiracy, and it helps no one to say that it is. It is one thing to debunk activists and quite another to attempt to debunk mainstream science. Even so, mainstream science is affected by biases, and that should be considered as well. Thus, we should consider the skeptics but also understand that they are promoting minority views that are considered to have even stronger biases.  

 

 

References:

 

Greta Thunberg Banned from Venice After Being Caught Polluting One of City's Historic Treasures. Samantha Chang. Western Journal. November 25, 2025. Greta Thunberg Banned from Venice After Being Caught Polluting One of City's Historic Treasures

CO2 Coalition. Website. Home - CO2 Coalition

Earth system models overstate carbon removal: New findings suggest nitrogen fixation is 50% lower than thought. Columbia University. edited by Lisa Lock, reviewed by Robert Egan. Phys.org. November 25, 2025. Earth system models overstate carbon removal: New findings suggest nitrogen fixation is 50% lower than thought